Kingsley Yianomah Quartey Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen, 2018 SCC 59

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v . Quartey , 2018 SCC 59, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 687 Appeal heard: December 14, 2018 Judgment rendered: December 14, 2018 Docket: 38026 Between: Kingsley Yianomah Quartey Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Martin JJ. Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 3) Brown J. (Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté and Martin JJ. concurring) R. v . Quartey, 2018 SCC 59, [2018] 3 S.C.R. 687 Kingsley Yianomah Quartey Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Quartey

2018 SCC 59 File No.: 38026. 2018: December 14. Present: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté, Brown and Martin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Credibility — Burden of proof — Generalizations and stereotypes — Accusedconvicted of sexual assault — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge’s credibility assessment could be reasonably supported by therecord and that he did not apply generalizations and stereotypes in rejecting accused’s evidence or shift burden of proof to accused —Conviction upheld. Cases Cited Referred to: R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Berger, Wakeling and Strekaf JJ.A.), 2018 ABCA 12, 43 C.R.(7th) 359, [2018] A.J. No. 55 (QL), 2018 CarswellAlta 70 (WL Can.), affirming the conviction of the accused for sexual assault. Appealdismissed. Kathryn Quinlan, for the appellant. Troy Couillard, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Brown J. — We agree substantially with the majority at the Court of Appeal, and would dismiss the appeal.

Thetrial judge’s analysis of the evidence reveals his path of reasoning that led to conviction, and permits effective appellate review. [2] Moreover, the trial judge did not err in his credibility analysis. He did not shift the burden of proof or hold theappellant’s evidence to a higher standard of scrutiny than that applied to the complainant’s evidence. As the majority at the Court ofAppeal observed, the trial judge instructed himself on the principles of R. v.

W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, and,based on internal contradictions in the appellant’s testimony and on the strength of the complainant’s testimony, he was entitled toconclude that the Crown had met its burden of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [3] Nor did the trial judge err by applying generalizations and stereotypes in rejecting the appellant’s evidence.

Weagree with the majority at the Court of Appeal that the trial judge’s statements in this regard were directed to the appellant’s ownevidence and to the believability of the appellant’s claims about how he responded to the specific circumstances of this case, and not tosome stereotypical understanding of how men in those circumstances would conduct themselves. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Dawson Duckett Garcia & Johnson, Edmonton. Solicitor for the respondent: Alberta Department of Justice, Edmonton.